Science cannot measure a singularity. Science is clueless on the nature of singularities. The math keeps coming up infinity. And to physicists, infinity is a dead end.

Science cannot measure a singularity.....YET.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

Science cannot measure dark energy. Science is clueless about the nature of dark energy.
Science cannot measure dark matter. Though indications of dark matter can be seen by way of gravitational lensing.

Science cannot measure dark matter.....YET.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

We know there is something holding the universe together and something is accelerating it's expansion, but cannot be directly detected.

It cannot be detected.....YET.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

True scientists accept there is far more that we don't know than we do know. Some things are right, and some things turned out to be wrong.

Isaac Newton had one of the most brilliant of human minds.

Despite that, he both believed in Alchemy and had absolutely no idea what kept the sun from burning out.

Mankind needed the development of quantum mechanics to explain the concept of Nuclear Fusion.

Science builds on science.

Religion is, always was, and forevermore will be, unprovable opinion designed to enslave the minds of men.

If something does not exist, there can be no "proof" of its non-existence. There can only be a consistent absence of such proof.

It is not for agnostics to prove the non-existence of God.

It is for gnostics to prove the existence of God.

And until they do, admit their particular flavor of silly superstition is just that -- silly superstition -- and stop demanding that their fellow man live by their silly superstitious tenets.

You seem to be responding like the question as an attack;

I don't care.
I'm just wondering if this reasoning applies to all things we know *not to exist* vs believing in things unproven to exist...like critters from another galaxy.

Personally, I believe in God, but I'm not committed to some denomination or Orthodox, just as I feel certain there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove either to be truth, but I don't see any proof to the contrary, either.

It seems like the base fundamental to aetheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.

I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with aetheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to aetheism here.

It seems like the base fundamental to atheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.

I don't rely on either. Instead, I rely on a strong inductive argument that meets or exceeds any practical definition proof that can reasonably be expected. None of the properties attributed to god are actually physically possible in this universe. Theists always claim transcendence, but there is nothing to indicate that this is a real phenomenon. Even if it were, god is also described as immanent which would still subject him to the basic laws of physics. Ignoring all that, you can't possess all the attributes described to god without logical paradoxes arising (fate/freewill, perfect creator/imperfect creation, etc.)

Nope, the whole idea of god is absurd on its face. Don't feel bad though, it took me 38 years to figure that out and I'm much smarter than most.

Quote:

I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with atheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to atheism here.

The irony is that you are suggesting a property belongs more to atheism than theism when the name of the property itself implies a religious origin. I think most atheists here would gladly walk away from the debate if theists would stop trying to legislate their beliefs on others.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

I'm just wondering if this reasoning applies to all things we know *not to exist*

Can you give an example of something that you "know" not to exist? Would you accept the burden of proof of asserting that it does not exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berto

Personally, I believe in God, but I'm not committed to some denomination or Orthodox, just as I feel certain there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove either to be truth, but I don't see any proof to the contrary, either.

Obviously lack of evidence of non-existence is not evidence of existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berto

It seems like the base fundamental to aetheism always comes down to burden of proof for theist as opposed to general acceptance that we don't know one way or the other.

The burden of proof rests on the party making the assertion. Christians assert that God exists, so they have the burden of proof to support that assertion. Very few atheists, that I'm aware of, assert "there is no god", since you cannot prove a negative *that is logically possible*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berto

I don't care what others believe, I'd think it would be the same with aetheist, but there seems to be an evangelical quality to aetheism here.

If your (and I mean that in the general, not specific sense) being a Christian meant nothing more than you wasting your time and money at Church, then I wouldn't particularly care. However, when belief compels people to attempt to legislate their deities morality on the entire population, and to abuse and reject science in favor of religious dogma, and for 1 in 8 high school biology teachers to admit to illegally advancing creationism in the classroom, etc., then it becomes an issue.

I don't know if there's a standard term for this concept but I've thought about how some ideas may or may not be true but regardless in its place there is what you might call "functional truth". Let me explain, someone asked me once "What if everything we know is wrong and everything we think we know is an illusion and there's really something else controlling the universe?". You know the old 'what if we're just part of someone's imagination' type question. I thought for a second and said "Who cares, everything we understand consistently operates under repeatable laws. So if you're right then I guess it changes nothing."

And once you open the "what if anything is possible" box then I guess anything is possible. If your hypothesis isn't based on evidence or needs to adhere to logic or physics then no one else's does either.

So once you ask if a supernatural being exists, you've by definition created an unprovable problem. So does God exists in someplace we can't explore? It doesn't matter. It would be different if our understanding of physical laws relied on the existence of God but it's not like if God didn't exist our equations for momentum or electric current would have huge holes in them. Functionally, no, God doesn't exist.

I don't know if there's a standard term for this concept but I've thought about how some ideas may or may not be true but regardless in its place there is what you might call "functional truth". Let me explain, someone asked me once "What if everything we know is wrong and everything we think we know is an illusion and there's really something else controlling the universe?". You know the old 'what if we're just part of someone's imagination' type question. I thought for a second and said "Who cares, everything we understand consistently operates under repeatable laws. So if you're right then I guess it changes nothing."

And once you open the "what if anything is possible" box then I guess anything is possible. If your hypothesis isn't based on evidence or needs to adhere to logic or physics then no one else's does either.

So once you ask if a supernatural being exists, you've by definition created an unprovable problem. So does God exists in someplace we can't explore? It doesn't matter. It would be different if our understanding of physical laws relied on the existence of God but it's not like if God didn't exist our equations for momentum or electric current would have huge holes in them. Functionally, no, God doesn't exist.

Those "what if" scenarios are just the last ditch effort from some people to support their unsupported assertions. Pascal's wager flows here like cheap wine right along with every other flawed argument ever devised by man. No matter how many times all those arguments are shot down they keep coming back like they've never been addressed simply because that's all they have. If there was something better then someone somewhere would have brought it up and the rest would have latched onto it out of sheer desperation to present a better argument than they have been yet that never happens.

This is why a thread about atheism being a religion can go on to infinity simply because one person can't accept that his entire argument hinges on one definition in one dictionary. That's all he has so that's what he sticks with. If there was something better you can bet that he of all people would find and present it. The only other option would be to admit defeat and that's just unacceptable when you think you're fighting the devil.

Still have problems with understanding and are driven by emotional abnormalities as usual.

I am pointing out that theories have been proven right and proven wrong and that there is still much more that we have not proven and what has not been proven remains a matter of 'hope the theory is right'. Kind of like faith, huh?
Unknown till known. that simple.

Funny how you make that claim of everyone that disagrees with you as if all the people that don't line up with your way of thinking have emotional abnormalities. That seems like an emotional abnormality to me. Actually, theories have been proven wrong and theories have withstood being proven wrong. There is no proving theories right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

As I said, true science understanding people understand how much we have yet to discover. A true scientist always keeps an open mind until firm evidence confirms or debunks a concept or theory.
I hope you realize the Big Bang theory is based on circumstantial evidence. That being the observed expansion.
Scientists assume that if the expansion were reversed, all matter and energy would converge to a central point... a singularity. All the math involved is based on that assumption. The laws of physics break down at the singularity.
I happen to agree with the BBT at this point because it is the most logical though it still has some problems.
But then there's M-theory. Controversial in the scientific community and has more problems than the BBT.

I'm glad that the "circumstantial" evidence was enough on it's own to convince you but I'm here to tell you that the evidence for BBT is anything but circumstantial. One of the best kinds of evidence is when you predict that if X is true then you should also be able to find Y and then you go and find Y like so, http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

That's several predictions that were lead to by previous predictions and all were in fact found to be true. In order to be proven false the standard model has to be unseated by a new model that explains everything the standard model does and more. Good luck with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

Perhaps some day physicists will detect dark energy. We only know it's there because of the accelerating expansion of the universe which until 1998 scientists thought the universe would slow and contract to a big crunch. Still could if the dark energy, which composes about 74% of the universe, weakens and gravity gets the upper hand. Dark matter is about 22% and the visible about 4%.

Not having discovered dark matter yet doesn't disprove the standard model anymore than any one "missing link" disproves evolution. There is enough supporting evidence there already. And we don't "know" dark matter is there. It's just a placeholder explanation that should be true based on what we do know. It could be something else entirely. As I said, the universe operates independently of our ability to understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blast

Try to keep an open mind. It does much for understanding.

Good advise that you should heed yourself, say, before posting videos of dogs humping legs and claiming it as evidence that animals act only on pheromones where sex drive is concerned yet humans are different. That one made me think that your mind may have been so open that your brain fell out and was promptly humped by a dog.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

If we are right and you are wrong then you will have spent most of your life limiting yourself to a life philosphy that was fundamentally flawed. You will have probably contributed a good deal of your income to charlatans in the form of "tithes" and denied yourself experiences and opportunities because the religious leaders you bough into told you it wasn't god's "plan" for your life.

We will have spent our one finite life making the most of it and appreciating what we have here and not wasting it looking forward to something that never comes.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

Pascal wasn't as smart as you seem to think.

If you are right? You have to be right that, first, supernatural gods exist, then that you have picked the right one. Since most people get their religious choice as an accident of birth, that would be quite a coincidence. Then, let's say, coincidentally, that the christian god is the right one and not some god that was worshipped long before he was ever though of - you have to have also joined the right version of that religion to get into heaven. Do you have to be Jewish, Muslim, Cathoic, Protestant? Which version of any of those? each teaches that you can't get there without obeying their special rules. So assuming you weren't supposed to be sacrificing camels to Marduk or waging war for Odin, your odds of being right are pretty slim and are not accounted for in Pascal's wager.

If atheists are right and you are wrong, they gaing freedom and, pretty much, the key to all human progress - science. We are literally hundreds or thousands of years behind where we could be right now if there were more atheists and fewer religious people in our history.

If atheists are right and you are wrong, you ahve wasted your life making immoral choices based on fiction. That's worth something.

__________________

Quote:

Anti-gun liberals can only call us idiots; it takes an idiot with a gun to prove them right.

Posted by AG:
Very few atheists, that I'm aware of, assert "there is no god"Ö

I do, in fact, make such an assertion. There are no gods. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no Easter Bunny. There are no trolls hiding under bridges, waiting to attack passersby.

I donít have to prove any of that. The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.

I do, in fact, make such an assertion. There are no gods. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no Easter Bunny. There are no trolls hiding under bridges, waiting to attack passersby.

I don't have to prove any of that. The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.

Or, as I like to say it, the probability of any of those possibilities actually being true is so vanishingly small as to not be worth any serious consideration at all. No one here would suggest living your life as if you were going to be abducted by aliens tomorrow and I consider that to be several orders of magnitude more likely than the existence of a supreme deity.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.